tv [untitled] April 25, 2012 5:00pm-5:30pm EDT
jimmy kimmal is the featured entertainment. our coverage gets underway at 6:30 eastern on saturday with tweets from celebrities and journalists in attendance and of course president obama addresses the gala. and now our live simulcast of c-span radio with host steve skully. and so a new development today here in washington, the announcement from the house floor of speaker of the house john boehner with both parties competing for support from
students the president has been pressuring congress to pass legislation to keep the current 3.4% interest rates on subsidized loans from doubling. they could double on july 1st. senate democrats have introduced a bill that would do so and cover the 5.9t billion price tag by raising payroll taxes. the debate continues and the bigger issue of how to pay for it. the house has passed a bill to impose on how much can be spent following revelations that the gsa in western states went on taxpayer junkets to hawaii, las vegas. here in washington oral arguments on the arizona immigration case. we will have more on this during the course of the program. newt gingrich saying his campaign is over. he is expected to formally
endorse mitt romney next tuesday here in washington, d.c. let's begin with our lead story. the comments of the house speaker saying the house will vote this friday. it is a republican sponsored bill trying to prevent interest rates from doubling for student loan programs. >> back in 2007 a democrat controlled congress put in place a law that would double student loan interest rates this year. republicans and democrats on both sides here on the capitol have agreed this was a problem that must be addressed. right now president's economic policies are leaving a recent college graduates 50% of them either unemployed or under employed. today i'm pleased to announce that on friday the house will vote on a bill to extend the current interest rate on federal student loans for one year. we will pay for this by taking
money from one of the slush funds in the president's health care law. this week the president's traveling the country on the taxpayer's dime campaigning and trying to have a fight where there isn't one and never has been one on this issue of student loans. we can and will fix the problem without a bunch of campaign style theatrics. the rising cost of tuition is a serious one for students. i know this issue well. it took me seven years to work my way through college working every job i could get my hands on. and what washington shouldn't be doing is exploiting the challenges that young americans face for political gain. it shouldn't be sticking small businesses with a health care law that is making it more difficult to hire workers.
let's leave the campaign theatrics for the fall. this slush fund has been used to offset other spending and done so in a bipartisan fashion. it's a reasonable and responsible way to deal with this problem that the democrats themselves created five years ago. >> that's exactly the right question. we need to be working towards a long term solution to this issue that brings the market into bear, looking at the possibility of variable rates. so this fix that the speaker has just outlined which will extend
the current 3.4% rate for one year and pay for it without adding $6 billion to the debt or billions of dollars in tax to small business this gives us the room to work for that long term solution which we all know that we have to reach, democrats, republicans house and senate. >> the comments of congressman john cline, he is the chair of the education and workforce committee. he was joined by john boehner as they made the announcement on capitol hill earlier today. paying for the measure in a way that republican prefer going after some of that money that is part of the president's health care bill. senate democrats have their own version of the bill which would pay about $6 billion price tag by raising payroll taxes on the upscale owners of privately owned corporations. more on the issue of student
loans today in iowa. the third and final stop, part of a two-day trip by the president. unc chapel hill and colorado university and then in iowa talking about the issue of student loan interest rates before interest rates increase on july 1st. >> the senate introduced a bill last night that would keep student loan rates from doubling. that's the good news. and what's also good news is some republican senators look like they might support it. i'm ready to work with them to make it happen. that's good. but i've got to tell you the republicans who run the house of representatives have not yet said whether they will stop your rates from doubling. and they have hinted that the only way they would do it is if they cut things like aid for low
income students. let me scratch my head for a second. we are going to help some students by messing with other students. that's not a good answer. how many people think that's a good answer? one of these members of congress. sometimes i like getting these quotes because i'm always interested in how folks talk about this issue. you've got one member of congress who compared the student loans to a stage three cancer of socialism. i don't know where to start. what do you mean? what are you talking about?
[ applause ] just when you think you heard it all in washington somebody comes up with a new way to go off the deep end. and then you have to spokesman for the speaker of the house who says we're -- meaning me, my administration -- we're just talking about student loans to distract people from the economy. now think about that for a second because these guys don't get it. this is the economy. [ applause ] this is the economy. this is about your job security. this is about your future. if you do well the economy does well. this is about the economy. >> the president at the university of iowa earlier today. he is back in washington tonight
spending the last two days pushing on congress to pass a student loan program that would make sure that interest rates don't increase effective july 1st. just some of the sound outside the u.s. supreme court as today justices hearing the arguments on arizona's tough immigration law. barns writing the story for the washington post says the justices seemed preceptive to the argument that arizona's plan to have state and local law enforcement officials play a much more active role in identifying illegal immigrants was a valid exercise of its power to protect borders. it's an issue of state rights and what the federal government does and doesn't want states to do with regards to immigration. justices according to the washington post seem skeptical of the obama administration's
claim that it was an inkrugz to set immigration policy as welt as the ability to implement it. here is more after the oral arguments took place. paul clement who argued for arizona had this to say. >> so obviously the court has heard the case now. we were gratified by the justices, thory consideration of this case, so thorough that they kept both lawyers at the podium longer than scheduled. i think that under scores the importance and seriousness of the issues. from the lawyer's perspective this case is about issues of federalism in particular and the focus has been on the arizona law as it should be. in some respects for the purposes of the justices the federal statutes are every bit important arizona statutes. what you saw here i think was a real understanding on the
justice's part that much of what arizona has done in this statute is to accept the invitation of the federal statutes themselves that really put a premium on trying to get communication. and so although a lot of the focus has been on the arizona approach i think you very much saw the justices focused on what congress has done and the burden is to show that there is a conflict between what the federal government has done in its congressional approach and what arizona has done in its own approach. very grateful for the opportunity to represent governor brewer and the state. it was a great working relationship starting at the process of trying to get the court interested in this case after the ninth circuit decided it. we were very gratified when the court accepted the case and the court heard it today and give us bonus time at the argument. >> in the back and forth with the justices pointed out that
nothing that the legislature did or the police would do could cause the federal government to do more than check. is that what you found most encouraging? >> i thought it was encouraging that all understood the way the laws operate and what was at issue in this case and not at issue in this case. the chief justice started things off by making clear that this isn't a case about profiling. this isn't really a case about the fourth amendment but a case about the relationship between the federal law and the state law. i think one of the things that is a misconception a lot of people have but the state law does not really authorize officers to do something they can't do otherwise. it makes it systematic and has the effect of overriding local
rules. i think that's what makes the federal government's argument difficult because they have to argue that this interferes not with a federal statute but with their enforcement posture and a number of justices pointed out they retain the ultimate decision about who to prosecute federally and who to remove from this country. and the principle provision of the arizona law discussed today really puts the federal officials in the position to know who they had in the country and then decide for themselves what to do as a matter of federal law. certainly gentleman did bring up an issue called heinz. i think a lot of the justices were of the view that that is not something they can take into account in this challenge. i think in that sense the justices were focused on the
specific issue of the interaction between federal statutes and state law. >> the comments of paul clement who argued the case on behalf of the state of arizona before the u.s. supreme court earlier today. he served in the bush administration as solicitor general and let's go back to the piece by robert barns writes that civil rights, religious and immigration groups have opposed to law because they say it will lead to racial profiling based on the color of their skin or accent. chief justice john roberts made clear before the current solicitor general could begin the argument that the federal government was not relying on such arguments in the current case. he agreed the argument was based on the belief that the federal law and federal government's prominence does preclude arizona's law. that is where the case came down today. a democratic member from illinois, member of the house of
representatives was inside the courtroom for the oral arguments and said this after the arguments were completed. >> we are all going to remember today and whose side you were on. it is clear that in america we should not have laws in which 50 states have 50 different ways of treating immigration policy especially laws that can only be enforced by making judgments on whether you have dirt on your boots, the color of your skin, the accent of your voice or your last name. that is no way to make law enforcement in the united states of america. it is illegal to use people's color or national origin to look what people look like. we should judge people on the basis of their actions. it is my hope that after the argument is made today that the arizona 1070 law which can only be seen as a law in which you
implement by forcing people to show their papers because you suspect them, not because you know anything but because you suspect them. it's wrong. we need comprehensive immigration reform in this country and not laws that treats the thousands and millions of latinos as suspects in the very nation they give their lives for. thank you so much. i think it is absolutely clear that we must immediately look at legislative actions that we can take in order to ensure that the civil rights of the communities of americans throughout this nation are protected. it is my hope that the supreme court will do that after listening to these arguments.
if not it is always incumbent up on the legislative branch to take the course that they deem necessary. with more on today's oral arguments we're joined on the phone by michael doyle thanks for being with us. >> my pleasure. >> what did you takeaway from today's oral arguments? what questions if any surprised you? >> i took away a definite sense that the court is sensitive to part of the arizona law and likely to uphold at least some of it. one of the questions or an observation that helped me come to that conclusion was raised by an obama administration appointee. she pointed out to the solicitor general that his argument was not selling very well. she said she was terribly confused by something that he
had said. while not nearly as skeptical as chief justice robert. the fact that she was willing to publicly state some of her own concerns made me come away thinking that this court will uphold part of the law. >> you write that she was the most persistent supporter of arizona's efforts and maybe shadowing questions posed. >> there is no surprise that he was emphatic. he was resoundingly clear in his skepticism of the administration's argument and his belief that people are in the country illegally and it is up to the state if the federal government is not doing it. justice was far and away the most aggressive questioner. justice roberts was persistent
asking repeatedly what it means for the federal government to simply report on the immigration status if requested by the state of arizona. it's never a fool proof measure or predictor for the court's decision to judge based on questions but there have been studies that the more aggressive the questioning the more likely the court is to rule against you. by that measurement this court will be ruling against administration at least in part. >> some stories questioning the performance of the solicitor general coming a month after oral arguments on the health care issue. >> what must be said is you can overstate the significance of the articulation and the verbal facility of the advocate. the justices are making their decision not on the rhetorical strengths of the advocates
before them but on the briefs and merits of the argument. that said there was nowhere said that at the end of it chief justice robert said good arguing on both sides. solicitor did not stumble manifestly in the way that he did at the start of one of the health care arguments. he did cling repeatedly to the argument or the assertion that the arizona law infringes. he seemed to keep repeating a point that was gaining traction. as a layman i was neither impressed by nor shocked by the quality of the argument. former solicitor general did his typical remarkably fluid job in answering questions. if you were to score points and that's the wrong thing to do mr.
clement clearly won today. >> the decision that the court will now undertake what is it? what do the justices have to decide? >> there were four provisions in question. the most famous or perhaps most infamous deals with the requirement that an arizona law enforcement officer was stopped for another reason and has a reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant they should check. there are others, it is a crime to be in the country illegally and not carry immigration papers. it makes it a crime to seek work or be employed if you are an illegal immigrant and authorizes warrantless arrests. some of those provisions may be struck down as being overly
duhplicative of federal law. this court will have to piece apart each of the four and match them up against what the states are required to do under the precedent. >> being inside the chamber can you give us a sense of the dynamics? >> there were on the order of 114 reporters which is about the same number that attended the health care arguments. in the chambers among the guests there was arizona governor jan brewer and former state senator mr. pierce who helped write the law. there were a large number of military officers present to be sworn in as officers of the court. there was a sense of electricity in the room. outside there were demonstrators chanting what we come to expect
around high profile cases at the court. among the supreme court reporters there was joking that if the court announced that they had actually come to a decision health care reform would be bailing out quickly and rush for the doors. it was a very entertaining day. especially for mr. clement who had argumentation at the highest level. it is always a hard day when you hear him press positions he disagrees with. >> michael doyle, a legal affairs reporter. thanks for being with us. >> always a pleasure. >> this is c-span radio's washington today. you can hear this supreme court oral argument on friday. c-span radio will play it at 4:00 eastern time. here in washington a cuban american in the u.s. senate, senator marco rubio outlining his vision of an american foreign policy.
he is being talked about as a potential running mate for mitt romney. he is 40 years old, came to this country, his parents came to this country from cuba. he is out with a new book discussing what his life was like growing up in the greater miami area and life for his father and grandfather. at the burkings institution here in washington, d.c. a speech that runs about 30 minutes available on our website at c-span.org. the perspective of senator marco rubio. >> the number of democracies in the world have proliferated nearly ten fold. we have had the longest period of peace between the great powers ever. now before anyone accuses me of claiming that america has ushered in the biblical promise of a new heaven and new earth let's remember the world america made is better but not perfect.
it is vastly more peaceful and prosperring than any other age in american history. what is the role for america now? it's now finally the time for us to mind our own business? is now the time for us to allow others to leave or play the role of equal partner? i start by reminding people that what happens around the world is our business. every aspect of our lives is directly impacted by global events. the security of our cities is effected by those in pakistan. our cost of living, the safety of our food, the value of the things we invent, make and sell are a few examples of every day aspects of our lives that are directly related to events abroad and make it impossible for us to focus only on our issues here at home. the next question i'm asked is why doesn't someone else lead
for a change? isn't it time for someone else to step up? i begin my answer to that question with a question of my own, if we start doing less who is going to do more? when a world order or china at least as we know china right now was the leading power being as benignly exposed as we are. i still have hope that behind the curtain of secrecy that there are voices that advocate for the peaceful and responsible rise of that nation, voices that reject the idea of a global power as a zero sum game. we hold our hope for a new china of tomorrow but for now we must deal with the china we know today, a china which enjoys its closest relationships with countries like north korea and iran. so at least for now it would be foolish to be confident in the
idea that china could be counted on to defend and support global economic and freedom or to take up the cause of human rights. the rest of the world has figured that out, too. and they would prefer not to take that risk. the short answer is that at least not yet anyways. there is no one else to hand off the baton to even if that were a good idea. on the most difficult trans national challenges of our time who will lead if we do not? the answer, at least today, is that no other nation or organization on earth is willing or able to do so. so finally i'll be asked if we still have to lead can't we at least be equal partners of somebody else? shouldn't we rely on other nations to carry more of the burden? after all we all know that they resent us telling them what to do, right? in this new century america
should work with our capable allies in finding solutions to global problems, not because america's gotten weaker but because our partners have grown stronger. it's worth pointing out that this is not a new idea for us. our greatest successes have always occurred in partnership with other like minded nations. america has acted unilaterally in the past and i believe it should continue to do so in the future when necessity requires. our preferred option since the u.s. became a global leader has been to work with others to achieve our goals. so global problems do require international coalitions. and on that point this administration is correct. but effective international coalitions don't form themselves. they need to be instigated and led. i believe that's what this
administration sometimes fails to understand. there are more countries able and willing to join efforts to meet the global challenges of our time but experience has proven that american leadership is almost always indispensable to its success. >> the comments of florida senator marco rubio who spoke today here in washington d.c. his new biography will be released in mid june and we'll have highlights later this summer on c-span 2 hfs book programming. this is washington today. first sticking with foreign affairs france raising the prospect of military intervention saying the u.n. should consider harsher measures. activists say government troops killed at least 29 civilians today including 12 killed in a shelling in the central city. rebels attacked elsewhere killing at least four